UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2015, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 06:22 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 06:09 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 03:51 PM)Free Wrote:  The 12 witnesses were interviewed by the Chicago Tribune.

And their testimony is unverified, unproven hearsay and can be dismissed until their identities can be known and their credibility as witnesses can be determined.
[Image: rejected-stamp.jpeg]

That's entirely up to you. YOU can reject it, and guess what?

You can yell it out at the top of your lungs, but at the end of the day the rest of the world doesn't fucking care that somebody with a nickname of "WhiskeyDebates" rejected some eyewitness accounts on some subject damn few people could even give a fuck about.

Nobody cares about what YOU think. You are all alone with your thoughts, and nobody gives a fuck.

And that's your litlle harsh reality in all this.

[Image: nobody-cares.jpg]

Laugh out load

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 05:51 PM)Free Wrote:  No no no.

You just read it wrong. Read it again. I'm giving you a chance here. See? I'm being nice!

Big Grin

I read it again, now here read what you copied from the report again:

Quote:"Witnesses B and C watched the object from the cockpit of a an empty B777 for at least 3.2 minutes (and as long as 5 minutes) sometime between 3:57:30 pm and about 4:18 pm. The UAP had gone by about 4:20 pm when they had reached their destination at the United maintenance hanger. Thus, according to them the object probably departed around 4:18 pm. Witness D said the object "disappeared within a fraction of a second"23 after he had been looking at it for approximately one minute (i.e., at about 4:33 or 4:34 pm) depending on how long it took him to reach the viewing location at Gate C5."

"The above time estimates appear to be at variance with the FAA's inbound ground controller's statement made at 3:58:09 pm to Gateway flight 5668 to, "…use caution for the ah, UFO" which is the first official mention of a UFO by the FAA. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour, that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error, or for some other reason? Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm. (+/- 1 min.) This time is important for the discussions of the hole in the cloud of Section 5.0, possible radar contact, and when ATC personnel looked for it from the control tower."

" Does this difference in time suggest... that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error...?"

Please tell me where in that the NARCAP identifies an error in the time stamps WHICH HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED ACCURATE and doesn't just posit one exists with no evidence in support of the postulation.

"Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm."

Please tell me how exactly this is not NARCAP making up a time out of no data.

I fucking read it. I fucking understand it. You try now.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 06:16 PM)Free Wrote:  That's entirely up to you. YOU can reject it, and guess what?

A.) Telling me that no one cares (which probably won't even be the case in this thread but..whatever) does not change the fact that their testimony IS hearsay, (which is not a matter of opinion but a fact), is unproven (which is not a matter of opinion but a fact), which is unverified (which is not a matter of opinion but a fact).

B.) Rejecting it as evidence is in fact intellectually dishonest, because it's an assertion that has not met it's burden of proof, defies Occom's Razor, and is internally inconstant. To except as true and to use it repeatedly in a debate is intellectually dishonest and you would not accept it as reasonable evidence in ANY subject that was not a part of your presup bias.

C.) If no one cares is an acceptable answer to you then no one cares that you like it and you can stop using it as "evidence".


Your not even addressing the facts/arguments any more your just being a cunt because you know your wrong and don't have the honesty to admit it.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 06:42 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 06:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Nobody cares about what YOU think. You are all alone with your thoughts, and nobody gives a fuck.

That's wonderful.

It doesn't make your idiocy any more rational. It is demonstrably not so, and it will remain so whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-09-2015, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 07:07 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
WhiskeyDebates Wrote:]No it fucking doesn't Free. Here is the exact quote:
"Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour, that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error, or for some other reason?"

The two (ANONYMOUS) testimonies do not match the time stamps so the author asks IF an error in the, certified accurate, tapes could be to blame, if the UFO stayed for almost a full hour, or some other reason.
IT does not "acknowledge a variance", it asserts one as a possible explanation. Here however is the best part:

You just don't get the language being used in the report, do you?

He lists 3 options:

1. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour,

2. that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error,

3. or for some other reason?

Hint: Pick Option 2.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 07:44 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 07:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
WhiskeyDebates Wrote:]No it fucking doesn't Free. Here is the exact quote:
"Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour, that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error, or for some other reason?"

The two (ANONYMOUS) testimonies do not match the time stamps so the author asks IF an error in the, certified accurate, tapes could be to blame, if the UFO stayed for almost a full hour, or some other reason.
IT does not "acknowledge a variance", it asserts one as a possible explanation. Here however is the best part:

You just don't get the language being used in the report, do you?

He lists 3 options:

1. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour,

2. that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error,

3. or for some other reason?

Hint: Pick Option 2.

I don't need to pick any of those because as he admits there is no data in support of any of his postulations. The issue is that the testimony of witness b is at odds with the evidence (time stamps).

There is no evidence the time stamps are in error. You can't just make up crap when your eye witnesses give faulty testimony.


You're very stupid.


So are you going to show me where NARCAP proves there is an error in the time stamps?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
17-09-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Quote:He lists 3 options.

Also 3 options to explain what exactly free?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 08:22 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 07:44 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(17-09-2015 07:03 PM)Free Wrote:  You just don't get the language being used in the report, do you?

He lists 3 options:

1. Does this difference in time suggest that the UAP remained above the airport for almost a full hour,

2. that the officially certified time of the inbound ground controller's tape recording is in error,

3. or for some other reason?

Hint: Pick Option 2.

I don't need to pick any of those because as he admits there is no data in support of any of his postulations. The issue is that the testimony of witness b is at odds with the evidence (time stamps).

There is no evidence the time stamps are in error. You can't just make up crap when your eye witnesses give faulty testimony.


You're very stupid.


So are you going to show me where NARCAP proves there is an error in the time stamps?

You don't understand their reasoning. They received 3 tapes. 1 tape, the one we question here, is in variance with the others. You yourself pointed out the error with the UTC time not being correct with the local time, and that the local time was 1 hour behind.

Tape start time: 22:55 UTC = 3:55 pm.

They also recognized this error, and went ahead assuming the error by next saying "Without definitive data we will assume that the UAP departed at about 4:34 pm," instead of 3:34 PM.

With that assumption, witness B, at 4:48 PM said he had seen the UAP "about a half hour ago," which would be approx around 4:18 PM.

The reason they suspect the time on the tape is wrong is because of what the tower info says. The tower mentions that "somebody reported a UFO," with a time stamp of 3:58, which tells us that sometime before 3:58 the UFO was reported, and that contradicts everything on the other tapes.

BUT, the problem with that is the other tapes show that it was Sue who reported the UFO to them at the tower twice, at 4:30 and 4:47.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 08:26 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You may find this conceivable, I don't. There is no evidence of another technological species, there is no good place for them to be hiding.

I believe there is evidence to demonstrate the possibility of the existence of another technological species. Of course this evidence is subjective,

Then it is not evidence.

Quote:but when we examine some old photographs from 60 + years ago, and from a time before the terms UFO and flying saucer were coined or even thought about, we have very good reason in the modern age to give some possibilities some legs.

The Cave Junction UFO was photographed in 1926 or 1927 by a volunteer fireman. Never debunked.

http://www.santafeghostandhistorytours.com/ ? Seriously?

Quote:George Sutton UFO 1932 Never debunked.

And never confirmed.

Quote:And far more listed year by year here

As well as a history of UFO reports here.

All this old stuff is the best evidence to support belief in non human intelligence being behind some of these old photos and historical reports.

If that's the best there is, I'll remain skeptical.

Quote:So yes, the circumstantial evidence to support an increased belief in non human intelligence exists, but again it is all subjective. The idea that any of the really old photos and reports are some kind of hoax just doesn't seem reasonable for that period of time where we see photos of saucer shaped craft in a period of time before UFOs and "flying saucers" were ever thought of.

Quote:No, it's ridiculous.

Considering the historical evidence presented above, I do not see anything ridiculous about the possibility whatsoever. Reports and photos of such saucer shaped crafts have persisted for the past 100 years, therefore a history and time-line of them possibly being here continuously, exists.

So the reports coincide with the existence of actual aircraft. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-09-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(17-09-2015 08:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 07:13 PM)Free Wrote:  I believe there is evidence to demonstrate the possibility of the existence of another technological species. Of course this evidence is subjective,

Then it is not evidence.

It is, as I said, evidence to demonstrate the possibility. Evidence is always subjective, for everything, and not just this.

Quote:
Quote:but when we examine some old photographs from 60 + years ago, and from a time before the terms UFO and flying saucer were coined or even thought about, we have very good reason in the modern age to give some possibilities some legs.

The Cave Junction UFO was photographed in 1926 or 1927 by a volunteer fireman. Never debunked.

http://www.santafeghostandhistorytours.com/ ? Seriously?

That pic is everywhere, doesn't matter.

Quote:
Quote:George Sutton UFO 1932 Never debunked.

And never confirmed.
Quote:The images speak for themselves, hence subjective.

[quote][quote]
And far more listed year by year here

As well as a history of UFO reports here.

All this old stuff is the best evidence to support belief in non human intelligence being behind some of these old photos and historical reports.

If that's the best there is, I'll remain skeptical.

That's actually a very very small sampling.

Quote:
Quote:So yes, the circumstantial evidence to support an increased belief in non human intelligence exists, but again it is all subjective. The idea that any of the really old photos and reports are some kind of hoax just doesn't seem reasonable for that period of time where we see photos of saucer shaped craft in a period of time before UFOs and "flying saucers" were ever thought of.


Considering the historical evidence presented above, I do not see anything ridiculous about the possibility whatsoever. Reports and photos of such saucer shaped crafts have persisted for the past 100 years, therefore a history and time-line of them possibly being here continuously, exists.

So the reports coincide with the existence of actual aircraft. Consider

They indicate it, yes.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: